(1)

The practice of tying the granting of aid, directly or indirectly, to the purchase of goods and services procured by means of that aid in the donor country reduces its effectiveness and is not coherent with a pro-poor development policy. The untying of aid is not an aim in itself, but should be used as a tool to cross-fertilise other elements in the fight against poverty, such as ownership, regional integration and capacity building, with a focus on empowering local and regional suppliers of goods and services in developing countries.

(2)

In March 2001, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a ‘Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance to the Least Developed Countries’ (3). The Member States adopted that recommendation and the Commission recognised the spirit of this Recommendation as a guidance for Community aid.

(3)

On 14 March 2002, the General Affairs Council held in parallel with the European Council in Barcelona in preparation for the International Conference on Financing for Development, convened in Monterrey on 18 to 22 March 2002, concluded that the European Union would ‘implement the DAC Recommendation on untying of aid to Least Developed Countries and continue discussions in view of further untying bilateral aid. The EU will also consider steps towards further untying of Community aid while maintaining the existing system of price preferences of the EU-ACP framework’.

(4)

On 18 November 2002, the Commission adopted a communication to the Council and to the European Parliament entitled ‘Untying: Enhancing the effectiveness of aid’. It presented the Commission’s views on the issue and possible options for the implementation of the abovementioned Barcelona commitment within the EU Aid Assistance system.

(5)

In its Conclusions on the Untying of Aid of 20 May 2003 the Council underlined the need to further untie Community aid. It agreed to the modalities detailed on the abovementioned Communication and decided on the options proposed.

(6)

On 4 September 2003, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the abovementioned Commission communication (4), in which it noted the need to further untie Community aid. It supported the modalities detailed in that Communication and agreed to the options proposed. It highlighted the need for further debate geared towards more untying on the basis of further studies and documented proposals, and called explicitly for ‘a clear preference for local and regional cooperation, prioritising – in ranking order – suppliers from the recipient country, neighbouring developing countries, and other developing countries’, in order to strengthen the efforts of the recipient countries to improve their own production at national, regional, local and family level, as well as actions aimed at improving the availability and accessibility to the public of foodstuffs and basic services, consistent with local habits and production and trading systems.

(7)

Several elements need to be addressed in order to define access to Community external assistance. The rules of eligibility governing access by persons are laid down in Article 3. The rules governing the engagement of experts and the origin of supplies and materials purchased by eligible persons are laid down in Articles 4 and 5 respectively. The definition and modalities of implementation of reciprocity are set out in Article 6. Derogations and their implementation are provided for in Article 7. Specific provisions concerning operations financed through an international organisation or a regional organisation, or co-financed with a third country, are laid down in Article 8. Specific provisions concerning humanitarian aid are laid down in Article 9.

(8)

Access to Community external assistance is defined in the basic acts regulating such assistance, in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (5) (hereinafter the Financial Regulation). The changes made by this Regulation to access to Community aid entail amendments to all those instruments. All the modifications to the basic acts concerned are listed in Annex I to this Regulation.

(9)

When awarding tenders under a Community instrument, special consideration will be given to respect for internationally agreed core labour standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), e.g. the conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining, elimination of forced and compulsory labour, elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, and the abolition of child labour.

(10)

When awarding tenders under a Community instrument, special consideration will be given to respect for the following internationally agreed environmental conventions: the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of 2000 and the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1997,

(1)

Action by the Community in the field of air transport should aim, as a priority, at ensuring a high level of protection for passengers from safety risks. Moreover, full account should be taken of the requirements of consumer protection in general.

(2)

A Community list of air carriers that do not meet relevant safety requirements should be brought to the notice of passengers so as to ensure the utmost transparency. This Community list should be based on common criteria drawn up at Community level.

(3)

Air carriers included in the Community list should be subject to an operating ban. The operating bans included in the Community list should apply throughout the territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies.

(4)

Air carriers that do not enjoy traffic rights in one or more of the Member States may nonetheless fly to and from the Community when their aircraft, with or without crew, are leased by companies that do enjoy such rights. Provision should be made for an operating ban included in the Community list to apply equally to such air carriers, since these air carriers could otherwise operate in the Community while not complying with the relevant safety standards.

(5)

An air carrier which is subject to an operating ban could be permitted to exercise traffic rights by using wet-leased aircraft of an air carrier which is not subject to an operating ban, provided that the relevant safety standards are complied with.

(6)

The procedure for updating the Community list should allow for decisions to be taken swiftly, in order to provide adequate and up-to-date safety information to air passengers and to guarantee that air carriers that have remedied safety deficiencies are taken off the list as soon as possible. At the same time, the procedures should respect the air carrier’s rights of defence and should be without prejudice to international agreements and conventions to which the Member States or the Community are parties, in particular the 1944 Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation. The implementing measures on matters of procedure, to be adopted by the Commission, should notably cater for these requirements.

(7)

When an operating ban has been imposed on an air carrier, appropriate action should be taken with a view to assisting that air carrier in remedying the deficiencies that gave rise to that ban.

(8)

In exceptional cases, Member States should be allowed to take unilateral measures. In cases of urgency and when confronted with an unforeseen safety problem, Member States should have the possibility to impose immediately an operating ban in respect of their own territory. Moreover, where the Commission has decided not to include an air carrier in the Community list, Member States should also be able to impose or maintain an operating ban in view of a safety problem which does not exist in the other Member States. Member States should make restrictive application of these possibilities, taking account of the Community interest and with a view to presenting a common approach in respect of aviation safety. This should be without prejudice to Article 8 of Council Regulation (EEC) No 3922/91 of 16 December 1991 on the harmonisation of technical requirements and administrative procedures in the field of civil aviation (3) and to Article 10 of Regulation (EC) No 1592/2002 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 July 2002 on common rules in the field of civil aviation and establishing a European Aviation Safety Agency (4).

(9)

Information on the safety of air carriers should be published in an effective manner, such as through use of the Internet.

(10)

In order for the competitive framework in air transport to yield the greatest possible benefits for companies and passengers, it is important that consumers receive the necessary information to be able to make informed choices.

(11)

The identity of the air carrier or carriers actually operating the flight is an essential piece of information. However, consumers concluding a contract of carriage, which could comprise both an outward and a return flight, are not always informed about the identity of the air carrier or carriers actually operating the flight or flights concerned.

(12)

Council Directive 90/314/EEC of 13 June 1990 on package travel, package holidays and package tours (5) requires certain information to be made available to consumers, but that information does not include the identity of the operating air carrier.

(13)

Council Regulation (EEC) No 2299/89 of 24 July 1989 on a code of conduct for computer reservation systems (CRS) (6) entitles consumers booking a flight via a computer reservation system to be informed of the identity of the operating air carrier. Nevertheless, even in scheduled air transport, industry practices exist, such as wet leasing, or code sharing if booked without a CRS, where the air carrier which has sold the flight under its name does not actually operate it and where there is currently no legal right for the passenger to be informed of the identity of the air carrier actually performing the service.

(14)

These practices increase flexibility and allow a better provision of services to passengers. Moreover, a certain number of last-minute changes, in particular for technical reasons, is unavoidable and contributes to the safety of air transport. This flexibility should, however, be balanced by verification that the companies actually operating the flights meet safety requirements and by transparency for consumers in order to guarantee them the right of making an informed choice. A fair balance between the commercial viability of air carriers and passenger access to information should be sought.

(15)

Air carriers should pursue a policy of transparency vis-à-vis passengers regarding safety-related information. Publishing such information should contribute to passenger awareness of the reliability of air carriers in safety terms.

(16)

Air carriers are responsible for reporting safety deficiencies to the national air safety authorities as well as for addressing such deficiencies without delay. Air and ground crew are expected to take appropriate action when safety deficiencies are apparent to them. It would be contrary to the interests of aviation safety if staff were to be penalised for doing so, as follows from Article 8(4) of Directive 2003/42/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2003 on occurrence reporting in civil aviation (7).

(17)

In addition to the situations covered by Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights (8), passengers should be offered the right to reimbursement or to re-routing in certain specific other situations falling within the scope of this Regulation, if there is a sufficiently close connection with the Community.

(18)

In addition to the rules set out in this Regulation, the implications of changes to the identity of the operating carrier for the performance of the contract of carriage should be governed by the laws of the Member States applicable to contracts and by relevant Community law, in particular Council Directives 90/314/EEC and 93/13/EEC of 5 April 1993 on unfair terms in consumer contracts (9).

(19)

This Regulation is part of a legislative process pursuing an efficient and coherent approach to reinforcing air safety in the Community, in which the European Aviation Safety Agency plays an important role. With an extension of the competencies of this Agency, such as in respect of third-country aircraft, its role under this Regulation could be further expanded. Special attention should be given to further improving the quality and quantity of safety inspections of aircraft and to harmonising these inspections.

(20)

Where there is a risk to safety that has not been adequately resolved by the Member State(s) concerned, the Commission should have the possibility of adopting immediate measures on a provisional basis. In such cases, the committee assisting the Commission in its work under this Regulation should act in accordance with the advisory procedure provided for in Article 3 of Council Decision 1999/468/EC of 28 June 1999 laying down the procedures for the exercise of implementing powers conferred on the Commission (10).

(21)

In all other cases, the committee assisting the Commission in its work under this Regulation should act in accordance with the regulatory procedure provided for in Article 5 of Decision 1999/468/EC.

(22)

Since the relation between this Regulation and Article 9 of Directive 2004/36/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on the safety of third-country aircraft using Community airports (11) would otherwise be unclear, that Article should be repealed with a view to providing legal certainty.

(23)

Member States should lay down rules on penalties applicable to infringements of the provisions of Chapter III of this Regulation and ensure that these penalties are applied. The penalties, which may be of a civil or administrative nature, should be effective, proportionate and dissuasive.

(24)

The Commission should analyse the application of this Regulation and, after a sufficient period, report on the efficiency of its provisions.

(25)

Any competent civil aviation authority in the Community may decide that air carriers, including those not operating in the territory of the Member States to which the Treaty applies, might lodge a request with that authority to subject the air carrier so requesting to systematic checks in order to verify its likelihood of compliance with the relevant safety standards.

(26)

This Regulation should not preclude the Member States from introducing a quality labelling system for air carriers at national level, for which the criteria might include considerations other than minimum safety requirements, in accordance with Community law.

(27)

Arrangements for greater cooperation over the use of Gibraltar airport were agreed in London on 2 December 1987 by the Kingdom of Spain and the United Kingdom in a joint declaration by the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of the two countries. Such arrangements have yet to enter into operation,

(1)

The practice of tying the granting of aid, directly or indirectly, to the purchase of goods and services procured by means of that aid in the donor country reduces its effectiveness and is not coherent with a pro-poor development policy. The untying of aid is not an aim in itself, but should be used as a tool to cross-fertilise other elements in the fight against poverty, such as ownership, regional integration and capacity building, with a focus on empowering local and regional suppliers of goods and services in developing countries.

(2)

In March 2001, the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) adopted a ‘Recommendation on Untying Official Development Assistance to the Least Developed Countries’ (2). The Member States adopted that recommendation and the Commission recognised the spirit of this recommendation as guidance for Community aid.

(3)

On 14 March 2002, the General Affairs Council held in parallel with the European Council in Barcelona in preparation for the International Conference on Financing for Development, convened in Monterrey on 18 to 22 March 2002, concluded that the European Union would ‘implement the DAC recommendation on untying of aid to least developed countries and continue discussions in view of further untying bilateral aid. The EU will also consider steps towards further untying of Community aid while maintaining the existing system of price preferences of the EU-ACP framework’.

(4)

On 18 November 2002, the Commission adopted a communication to the Council and to the European Parliament entitled ‘Untying: Enhancing the effectiveness of aid’. It presented the Commission’s views on the issue and possible options for the implementation of the abovementioned Barcelona commitment within the EU aid assistance system.

(5)

In its Conclusions on the Untying of Aid of 20 May 2003 the Council underlined the need to further untie Community aid. It agreed to the modalities detailed on the abovementioned Communication and decided on the options proposed.

(6)

On 4 September 2003, the European Parliament adopted a resolution on the abovementioned Commission communication (3), in which it noted the need to further untie Community aid. It supported the modalities detailed in that Communication and agreed to the options proposed. It highlighted the need for further debate geared towards more untying on the basis of further studies and documented proposals, and called explicitly for ‘a clear preference for local and regional cooperation, prioritising – in ranking order – suppliers from the recipient country, neighbouring developing countries, and other developing countries’, in order to strengthen the efforts of the recipient countries to improve their own production at national, regional, local and family level, as well as actions aimed at improving the availability and accessibility to the public of foodstuffs and basic services, consistent with local habits and production and trading systems.

(7)

Several elements need to be addressed in order to define access to Community external assistance. The rules of eligibility governing access by persons are laid down in Article 3. The rules governing the engagement of experts and the origin of supplies and materials purchased by eligible persons are laid down in Articles 4 and 5 respectively. The definition and modalities of implementation of reciprocity are set out in Article 6. Derogations and their implementation are provided for in Article 7. Specific provisions concerning operations financed through an international organisation or a regional organisation, or co-financed with a third country, are laid down in Article 8. Specific provisions concerning humanitarian aid are laid down in Article 9.

(8)

Access to Community external assistance is defined in the basic acts regulating such assistance, in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (4) (hereinafter the Financial Regulation). The changes made by this Regulation to access to Community aid entail amendments to all those instruments. All the modifications to the basic acts concerned are listed in Annex I to this Regulation.

(9)

When awarding tenders under a Community instrument, special consideration will be given to respect for internationally agreed core labour standards of the International Labour Organisation (ILO), e.g. the conventions on freedom of association and collective bargaining, elimination of forced and compulsory labour, elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation, and the abolition of child labour.

(10)

When awarding tenders under a Community instrument, special consideration will be given to respect for the following internationally agreed environmental conventions: the Convention on Biological Diversity of 1992, the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety of 2000 and the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1997,

(1)

Decision No 2256/2003/EC (3), established the Modinis programme for the monitoring of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan, dissemination of good practices and the improvement of information and network security for the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2005.

(2)

Decision No 2256/2003/EC was amended by Decision No 787/2004/EC in order to adapt the reference amounts to take account of the enlargement of the European Union.

(3)

In its Resolution of 9 December 2004 on looking into the future of information communication technologies (ICT) (4), the Council invited the Commission to start preparatory work for the follow-up to the eEurope 2005 Action Plan as an important part of the new Agenda for the Information Society beyond 2005.

(4)

The Commission Communication of 19 November 2004, entitled ‘Challenges for the European Information Society beyond 2005’, analyses the challenges that a European information society strategy up to 2010 must address. It argues for wider use of ICTs and for continued policy attention to ICT-related issues, which involves the need for monitoring and exchange of good practices. That Communication was the starting point for a reflection process that led to a new Information Society initiative in 2005, to start in 2006.

(5)

The new initiative, entitled ‘i2010: European Information Society’, was announced in the Commission Communication of 2 February 2005 to the Spring European Council, entitled ‘Working together for growth and jobs – A new start for the Lisbon Strategy’, aiming at stimulating the take-up of ICTs.

(6)

The Commission Communication of 1 June 2005, entitled ‘i2010 – A European Information Society for growth and employment’, outlines the key policy priorities of a five-year strategy to promote an open and competitive digital economy. The promotion of exchange of good practices and the monitoring of the take-up of ICT-enabled services will continue to support the dialogue with stakeholders and Member States, notably in the context of the open method of coordination.

(7)

In the proposal for a decision of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing a competitiveness and innovation framework programme (2007 to 2013), a framework programme for Community action in the field of competitiveness and innovation, covering the period 2007 to 2013, is proposed which brings together specific Community measures contributing to entrepreneurship, SMEs, industrial competitiveness, innovation, information and communication technology, environmental technologies and intelligent energy, including those measures provided for in Decision No 2256/2003/EC.

(8)

Regulation (EC) No 808/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 concerning Community statistics on the information society (5) establishes a common framework for the systematic production of Community statistics on the information society. These statistics include information required for the eEurope benchmarking process, are relevant to the structural indicators supporting the monitoring of performance of Member States and are necessary in order to provide a uniform basis for analysis of the Information Society.

(9)

In the 12 months between the expiry of the eEurope 2005 Action Plan and the anticipated start of the Framework Programme in 2007, the take-up of ICTs across the economy needs to be monitored and supported through continuation of benchmarking and statistical analysis based on structural indicators, and the exchange of good practices. The actions taken under the programme on benchmarking, good practices and policy coordination in 2006 will support the achievement of the objectives of the abovementioned Commission Communications of 2 February 2005 and 1 June 2005.

(10)

The mechanisms for monitoring and for the exchange of experiences, benchmarking activities, dissemination of good practices and analysis of economic and societal consequences of the information society should be continued in 2006 to achieve the objectives of the Commission Communication of 2 February 2005, aiming at stimulating the take-up of ICTs as a continuation of the eEurope agenda, and those of the Commission Communication of 1 June 2005.

(11)

Decision No 2256/2003/EC should therefore be amended,

1.

the following Article shall be inserted:

2.

the following Article shall be inserted:

(*1)   OJ L 143, 30.4.2004, p. 49.’ "

3.

in Article 4, the first paragraph shall be replaced by the following:

‘The programme shall cover the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 December 2006.

The financial framework for the implementation of this programme is hereby set at EUR 30 160 000.’

4.

the Annex shall be replaced by the text in the Annex to this Decision.

(1)

Directive 90/544/EEC (4) required Member States to designate, by 31 December 1992, in the 169,4 to 169,8 MHz radio spectrum band four channels for the pan-European land-based public radio paging service (hereinafter ERMES) and to prepare, as quickly as possible, plans to enable pan-European public radio paging service to occupy the whole band 169,4 to 169,8 MHz according to commercial demand.

(2)

Use of the 169,4 to 169,8 MHz spectrum band for ERMES in the Community has decreased or even ceased, so that this band is not currently being efficiently utilised by ERMES and could be better used to fulfil other Community policy needs.

(3)

Decision No 676/2002/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a regulatory framework for radio spectrum policy in the European Community (Radio Spectrum Decision) (5) established a Community policy and legal framework to ensure coordination of policy approaches and, where appropriate, harmonised conditions with regard to availability and efficient use of the spectrum band necessary for the establishment and functioning of the internal market. That Decision allows the Commission to adopt technical implementing measures to ensure harmonised conditions for the availability and efficient use of the spectrum band.

(4)

Since the 169,4 to 169,8 MHz band is appropriate for applications benefiting people with impairments or disabilities, and considering that promotion of such applications is a policy objective for the Community together with the general objective of ensuring the functioning of the internal market, the Commission pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Radio Spectrum Decision issued the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administration (hereinafter the CEPT) with a mandate to examine, inter alia, applications related to assistance for people with disabilities.

(5)

As mandated, the CEPT produced a new frequency plan, and a channel arrangement allowing six types of preferred applications to share the band in order to meet several Community policy needs.

(6)

For these reasons and in accordance with the objectives of the Radio Spectrum Decision, Directive 90/544/EEC should be repealed,

(1)

Article 14 of the Treaty establishes an area without internal frontiers in which the free movement of goods, persons, services and capital is ensured.

(2)

Work on the internal market should improve the quality of life, health protection and consumer safety. This Directive complies with the requirements of ensuring a high level of health protection and of consumer protection in the definition and implementation of all Community policies and activities.

(3)

The use of certain phthalates in toys and childcare articles made of plasticised material or including parts made of plasticised material should be prohibited as the presence of certain phthalates presents or could potentially present risks related to the health of children. Toys and childcare articles which, although not intended for that purpose, can be put in the mouth, may under certain circumstances present a risk to the health of small children if they are made of plasticised material, or include parts made of plasticised material, which contains certain phthalates.

(4)

The Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE), after being consulted by the Commission, has delivered opinions on the health risks raised by these phthalates.

(5)

Commission Recommendation 98/485/EC of 1 July 1998 on childcare articles and toys intended to be placed in the mouth by children of less than three years of age, made of soft PVC containing certain phthalates (4), invited Member States to take measures to ensure a high level of child health protection with regard to these products.

(6)

Since 1999, the use of six phthalates in toys and childcare articles intended to be placed in the mouth by children under the age of three is subject to a temporary ban at European Union level following the adoption of Commission Decision 1999/815/EC (5) in the framework of Council Directive 92/59/EEC of 29 June 1992 on general product safety (6). This Decision is being renewed regularly.

(7)

Limitations already adopted by certain Member States on the placing on the market of toys and childcare articles because of their phthalate content directly affect the completion and functioning of the internal market. It is therefore necessary to approximate the laws of the Member States in this field and consequently to amend Annex I to Directive 76/769/EEC (7).

(8)

The precautionary principle should be applied where scientific evaluation does not allow the risk to be determined with sufficient certainty in order to ensure a high level of protection of health, in particular for children.

(9)

Children as developing organisms are particularly vulnerable to reprotoxic substances. Therefore, the exposure of children to all practically avoidable sources of emissions of these substances, especially from articles which are put into the mouth by children, should be reduced as far as possible.

(10)

During risk assessments and/or within the framework of Council Directive 67/548/EEC of 27 June 1967 on the approximation of laws, regulations and administrative provisions relating to the classification, packaging and labelling of dangerous substances (8), di(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), dibutyl phthalate (DBP) and benzyl butyl phthalate (BBP) have been identified as reprotoxic substances and have therefore been classified as reprotoxic, category 2.

(11)

Scientific information regarding di-isononyl phthalate (DINP), di-isodecyl phthalate (DIDP) and di-n-octyl phthalate (DNOP) is either lacking or conflictual, but it cannot be excluded that they pose a potential risk if used in toys and childcare articles, which are by definition produced for children.

(12)

The uncertainties in the evaluation of exposure to these phthalates, such as mouthing times and exposure to emissions from other sources, require that precautionary considerations be taken into account. Therefore, restrictions on the use of these phthalates for toys and childcare articles and on the placing on the market of such articles should be introduced. However, the restrictions for DINP, DIDP and DNOP should be less severe than the ones proposed for DEHP, DBP and BBP for reasons of proportionality.

(13)

The Commission should review other applications of articles made from plasticised material or including parts made from plasticised material which may expose people to risks, especially those used in medical devices.

(14)

In line with the Commission Communication on the Precautionary Principle, the measures based on this principle should be subject to review in the light of new scientific information.

(15)

The Commission, in cooperation with the Member State authorities responsible for market surveillance and enforcement for toys and childcare articles, and in consultation with the relevant organisations of producers and importers, should monitor the use of phthalates and other substances as plasticisers in toys and childcare articles.

(16)

For the purpose of Directive 76/769/EEC, the term ‘childcare article’ should be defined.

(17)

In accordance with paragraph 34 of the Interinstitutional Agreement on Better Law-making (9), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Community, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.

(18)

The Commission will review the use of the phthalates listed in Annex I to Directive 76/769/EEC in other products when the risk evaluation under Council Regulation (EEC) No 793/93 of 23 March 1993 on the evaluation and control of the risks of existing substances (10) will have been concluded.

(19)

This Directive applies without prejudice to Community legislation laying down minimum requirements for the protection of workers contained in Council Directive 89/391/EEC of 12 June 1989 on the introduction of measures to encourage improvements in the safety and health of workers at work (11) and in individual directives based thereon, in particular Council Directive 90/394/EEC of 28 June 1990 on the protection of workers from the risks related to exposure to carcinogens at work (12) and Council Directive 98/24/EC of 7 April 1998 on protection of health and safety of workers from the risk related to chemical agents at work (13),

1.

the following point shall be added to Article 1(3):

;

2.

Annex I shall be amended as set out in the Annex to this Directive.

(1)

Directive 2000/14/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3) has been the subject of a review by the Working Group on Outdoor Equipment, set up by the Commission.

(2)

In its report dated 8 July 2004, this Working Group concluded that a number of the stage II limits due to be mandatorily applied as from 3 January 2006 were not technically feasible. However, the intention was never to restrict the placing on the market or putting into service of equipment solely based on technical feasibility.

(3)

It is therefore necessary to provide that certain types of equipment listed in Article 12 of Directive 2000/14/EC, which would not be able to meet the stage II limits by 3 January 2006 solely for technical reasons, can still be placed on the market and/or put into service as from that date.

(4)

The experience of the first five years of application of Directive 2000/14/EC has demonstrated that more time is needed to fulfil the provisions under Articles 16 and 20 thereof and highlighted the need to review that Directive with a view to its possible amendment, in particular with respect to the stage II limits referred to therein. It is therefore necessary to extend by two years the deadline for submission of the report to the European Parliament and to the Council on the Commission’s experience in implementing and administering Directive 2000/14/EC as referred to in Article 20(1) of that Directive.

(5)

Article 20(3) of Directive 2000/14/EC provides for the submission, by the Commission, of a report to the European Parliament and to the Council on whether, and to what extent, technical progress allows a reduction of limit values for lawnmowers and lawn trimmers/lawn-edge trimmers. In view of the fact that the obligations contained in Article 20(1) of that Directive are more prescriptive than those in Article 20(3), and in order to avoid duplication of effort, it is appropriate to include these types of equipment in the general report provided for in Article 20(1) of that Directive. Consequently, the separate reporting obligation in Article 20(3) of that Directive should be deleted.

(6)

Since the objective of this Directive, namely, to ensure the ongoing functioning of the internal market by requiring equipment used outdoors to comply with harmonised environmental noise provisions, cannot be sufficiently achieved by Member States and can therefore, by reason of the scale and effects of the proposed action, be better achieved at Community level, the Community may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as set out in that Article, this Directive does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve this objective, in that its scope is confined to those types of equipment for which compliance with the stage II limits is presently impossible for technical reasons.

(7)

In accordance with point 34 of the Interinstitutional agreement on better law making (4), Member States are encouraged to draw up, for themselves and in the interest of the Community, their own tables illustrating, as far as possible, the correlation between this Directive and the transposition measures, and to make them public.

(8)

Directive 2000/14/EC should therefore be amended accordingly,

1.

The table in Article 12 shall be replaced by the following:

2.

Article 20 shall be amended as follows:

(1)

Council Directive 90/544/EEC of 9 October 1990 on the frequency bands designated for the coordinated introduction of pan-European land-based public radio paging in the Community (the ERMES Directive) (2) was repealed on 27 December 2005 by Directive 2005/82/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (3). That Directive required Member States to designate in the 169,4 to 169,8 MHz radio spectrum band four channels for the pan-European land-based public radio paging service (hereinafter referred to as ‘ERMES’) and to ensure that ERMES services occupy, as quickly as possible, the whole of the 169,4 to 169,8 MHz radio spectrum band according to commercial demand.

(2)

The use of the 169,4 to 169,8 MHz radio spectrum band for ERMES in the Community has decreased dramatically or even ceased altogether, with the result that this radio spectrum band is not being efficiently utilised by ERMES and could therefore be better used to fulfil other Community policy needs.

(3)

Pursuant to Article 4(2) of the Radio Spectrum Decision, the Commission issued on 7 July 2003 a mandate to the European Conference of Postal and Telecommunications Administrations (hereinafter referred as ‘CEPT’) to collect information on the current and future possible applications of the 169,4 to 169,8 MHz band, to identify a list of alternative options for the use of the radio spectrum band and in particular those which are not related only to traditional electronic communications. The CEPT was asked to evaluate, for each possible application, co-existence between various applications and the possibility of using alternative radio spectrum bands, in line with the principles of the Framework Directive. The radio spectrum band, which is already partially harmonised, is appropriate for certain applications related to the establishment and functioning of the internal market in a number of Community policy areas, among which some are likely to benefit disabled people or assist justice and home affairs collaboration in the European Union.

(4)

Article 8(4) of Directive 2002/21/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on a common regulatory framework for the electronic communications networks and services (Framework Directive) (4) requires Member States to promote the interests of European Union citizens by inter alia addressing the needs of specific social groups, in particular hearing impaired persons and persons requiring urgent assistance.

(5)

Based on technical investigations and on collection of information, the CEPT confirmed that despite the adoption of Directive 90/544/EEC, the use of this radio spectrum band for ERMES has remained very limited and that the need for radio messaging or paging systems has changed in Europe as the functions thereof have been replaced by other technologies such as short messaging systems (SMS) over GSM.

(6)

The designation of parts of the 169,4 to 169,8 MHz radio spectrum band for ERMES should therefore be modified in the Community in order to ensure more efficient use of this radio spectrum band, while preserving its harmonised character.

(7)

As mandated, the CEPT has produced a new frequency plan and channel arrangement allowing six types of preferred applications to share the radio spectrum band from 169,4 up to 169,8125 MHz, in order to meet several Community policy needs. These needs include assistance through the use of hearing aids to persons suffering from hearing disability, for whom a harmonised radio spectrum band in the Community would improve travelling conditions between Member States and reduce equipment prices through economies of scale; the development of the internal market for social alarms, which allow elderly or disabled people to send alarm messages for assistance, asset tracking or tracing devices, which would assist in tracking and recovering stolen goods across the Community, meter reading systems used by water and electricity utility companies; and existing paging systems such as ERMES as well as private mobile radio systems (PMR) when employed for temporary use, to assist in the coverage of special temporary events for a period of a few days up to a few months.

(8)

The results of the mandate to the CEPT, which the Commission regards as satisfactory, should be made applicable in the Community and implemented by the Member States. The remaining ERMES and/or PMR authorisations which are not in conformity with the new frequency plan and channel arrangement should be allowed to remain unaffected until their expiry or until ERMES and/or PMR applications can be moved to the appropriate radio spectrum bands without excessive burden.

(9)

When allowing access to radio spectrum the least onerous authorisation system should be used, in accordance with Directive 2002/20/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 7 March 2002 on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (Authorisation Directive) (5), including absence of individual rights of use.

(10)

Without prejudice to the fact that spectrum requirements of specific policies may require exclusive frequency designations, it is generally appropriate to propose as generic allocations as possible for radio spectrum bands so as to steer their usage only by defining specific usage constraints such as duty cycle or power levels, and to ensure through harmonised standards recognised under the Directive 1999/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 1999 on radio equipment and telecommunications terminal equipment and the mutual recognition of their conformity (6) that equipment operating in the allocated radio spectrum minimises use of the radio spectrum in a way to avoid harmful interference.

(11)

Coordination of channels in the high power part of the 169,4 – 169,8125 MHz band between neighbouring countries will be ensured by bi- or multilateral agreements.

(12)

In order to ensure effective use of the 169,4 to 169,8125 MHz band also in the longer term administrations should continue with studies that may increase efficiency, in particular the utilisation of the identified guard band.

(13)

The measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Radio Spectrum Committee.

(a)

‘hearing aid’ means a radio communications system which usually includes one or more radio transmitters and one or more radio receivers allowing persons suffering from hearing disability to increase their listening capability;

(b)

‘social alarm’ means a reliable radio communications system and network including portable equipment which allows a person in distress in a limited area to initiate a call for assistance by a simple manipulation;

(c)

‘meter reading system’ means a system which allows remote status monitoring, measuring and service commands using radio communication devices;

(d)

‘tracing and asset tracking system’ means a system which allows the tracing and tracking of goods, leading to their recovery, consisting in general of an radio transmitter placed on the item to be protected and a receiver and may also include an alarm;

(e)

‘paging system’ means a system allowing one-way radio communications between the sender and the receiver using a base station with the mobile as a receiver;

(f)

‘private mobile radio communications (PMR)’ means a land mobile communications service using simplex, half duplex and possibly full duplex modes at the terminal level to provide closed user group communications.